The Marvel Cinematic Universe- Silver Surfer cast

[D82]

12 hours ago, The LBC said:

Adding on to the above, the MCU was going to get a gay superhero at some point when they introduced the X-Men anyway.  Iceman is one of the original four X-men and if, after Marvel having him come out in the comics several years ago, they tried to retcon him to being straight - particularly when the previous cinematic version of him was poorly done, as a representation of Bobby and just in general, you'd have hell to pay coming at you from multiple communities - considerably more than the homophobes.

I keep forgetting they did that with Iceman...I'd love to see his current character portrayed on the big screen 

[Dr LBC]

1 hour ago, D82 said:

I keep forgetting they did that with Iceman...I'd love to see his current character portrayed on the big screen 

The interesting part to add in on top of that is if you cast actors who are fans of the source material to begin with (which they've done several times already - and they've gone the complete opposite way as well as Brie Larson was utterly comic book illiterate when she initially signed on), you're likely to get an actor who would be upset if that retcon were attempted.

I can fully accept not making a character homosexual just for the sake of making them homosexual (that's pandering in the opposite direction) when there is no basis other than, "We want to have greater appeal/scope."  But when the character has actually been written as being out, it's a disservice to not portray them as such if you're doing a film-version.

[MacReady]

Lots of people are theorizing that David Harbour just teased his role in the Black Widow movie. 

Quote

“I’m glad this thing is joining the Marvel Cinematic Universe”.

 

[AlexGreen#20]

On 5/10/2019 at 1:34 PM, The LBC said:

The interesting part to add in on top of that is if you cast actors who are fans of the source material to begin with (which they've done several times already - and they've gone the complete opposite way as well as Brie Larson was utterly comic book illiterate when she initially signed on), you're likely to get an actor who would be upset if that retcon were attempted.

I can fully accept not making a character homosexual just for the sake of making them homosexual (that's pandering in the opposite direction) when there is no basis other than, "We want to have greater appeal/scope."  But when the character has actually been written as being out, it's a disservice to not portray them as such if you're doing a film-version.

Why is it somehow pure if the comic panders, but the movie isn't allowed to?

[AlexGreen#20]

On 5/9/2019 at 10:58 PM, The LBC said:

Adding on to the above, the MCU was going to get a gay superhero at some point when they introduced the X-Men anyway.  Iceman is one of the original four X-men and if, after Marvel having him come out in the comics several years ago, they tried to retcon him to being straight - particularly when the previous cinematic version of him was poorly done, as a representation of Bobby and just in general, you'd have hell to pay coming at you from multiple communities - considerably more than the homophobes.

By that logic, every character that they've made alternative versions of the nontraditional characters would need to stay. Colossus was gay in the Ultimate universe pretty much before it was cool to do it.

[kingseanjohn]

3 hours ago, Outpost31 said:

Lots of people are theorizing that David Harbour just teased his role in the Black Widow movie. 

 

The Thing doesn't make sense for a BW movie

[Heinz D.]

56 minutes ago, kingseanjohn said:

The Thing doesn't make sense for a BW movie

Don't see why not. A BW movie could literally be about anything in the MCU. 

[kingseanjohn]

Just now, Heinz D. said:

Don't see why not. A BW movie could literally be about anything in the MCU. 

Except as a prequel it wouldn't make sense to have the Fantastic Four.

Now if it's Man-Thing, I could see that.

[Ragnarok]

46 minutes ago, kingseanjohn said:

Except as a prequel it wouldn't make sense to have the Fantastic Four.

Now if it's Man-Thing, I could see that.

I would LOVE for them to bring Man-Thing in.  

[Dr LBC]

5 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

By that logic, every character that they've made alternative versions of the nontraditional characters would need to stay. Colossus was gay in the Ultimate universe pretty much before it was cool to do it.

To be fair, that version of Colossus never became treated as canon the way that Iceman did, the way Northstar has been for 20+ years, the way Rictor, Shatterstar, Hulking, etc. have been since the early 2000's.

[Dr LBC]

1 hour ago, kingseanjohn said:

The Thing doesn't make sense for a BW movie

Could be a Ben Grimm cameo, i.e. before he actually gets turned into Thing - especially since the BW movie is going to be some sort of prequel and setting it in say 2006 or so (which would basically be 2 years before she shows up in Iron Man 2) would only be 15 years before the current timeline and it would be a neat way to get people hype for a future FF movie.

[Dr LBC]

5 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Why is it somehow pure if the comic panders, but the movie isn't allowed to?

Because the comic didn't do it to pander.  Why is it you view it as pandering?  Or do you view any introduction or deviation from the 50's and 60's canon as "pandering?"

[AlexGreen#20]

3 minutes ago, The LBC said:

To be fair, that version of Colossus never became treated as canon the way that Iceman did, the way Northstar has been for 20+ years, the way Rictor, Shatterstar, Hulking, etc. have been since the early 2000's.

I'm not sure All-New X-Men that came out in 2012 is anywhere near the cannonical pillar you're labeling it as. 

[KManX89]

On 5/10/2019 at 1:34 PM, The LBC said:

The interesting part to add in on top of that is if you cast actors who are fans of the source material to begin with (which they've done several times already - and they've gone the complete opposite way as well as Brie Larson was utterly comic book illiterate when she initially signed on), you're likely to get an actor who would be upset if that retcon were attempted.

I can fully accept not making a character homosexual just for the sake of making them homosexual (that's pandering in the opposite direction) when there is no basis other than, "We want to have greater appeal/scope."  But when the character has actually been written as being out, it's a disservice to not portray them as such if you're doing a film-version.

The funny thing is, Iceman was pretty much always straight in the comics and they literally decided to turn him gay just for the sake of it (or "diversity") after years of him being a womanizer, though once they set the benchmark, it's kinda hard to shy away from it in film adaptations without upsetting certain fans for "straightwashing". LGBT folk have to deal with enough of that already as it is. It's just like when they whitewash already limited roles written specifically for Asian-Americans or other AoCs (anime adaptations mainly fall victim to this, but other films have done it, too, namely Aloha and 21).

Contrast that to Deadpool, who's long flirted with both men and women in the comics and teased as much in Deadpool 2 (I think you know which scene I'm referring to). Ryan Reynolds even said he's interested in finding Wade a boyfriend in a later sequel. Not Peter, though, he's underage.

Edited May 27, 2019 by KManX89

[AlexGreen#20]

1 minute ago, The LBC said:

Because the comic didn't do it to pander.  Why is it you view it as pandering?  Or do you view any introduction or deviation from the 50's and 60's canon as "pandering?"

Because Disney (who has a massive history of pandering actions) bought the publishing company three years before and pushed a massive diversifying initiative.

Because they pushed a minority/female/homosexual version of every main title character page except Deadpool. Wolverine, Spider-Man, Captain America, Thor, and Iron Man.